JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lyons, G. R.
Right arrow Articles by Columb, M. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lyons, G. R.
Right arrow Articles by Columb, M. O.

Anesth Analg 2007;104:412-415
© 2007 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000252458.20912.ef

OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA

A Comparison of Minimum Local Anesthetic Volumes and Doses of Epidural Bupivacaine (0.125% w/v and 0.25% w/v) for Analgesia in Labor

Gordon R. Lyons, MD, FRCA*, Mitko G. Kocarev, MD, DEAA*, Rowan C. Wilson, MRCP, FRCA*, and Malachy O. Columb, FRCA{dagger}

From the *Department of Obstetric Anaesthesia, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK; and {dagger}Intensive Care Unit, South Manchester University Hospital, Wythenshawe, UK.

BACKGROUND: In this study we sought to determine and compare the minimum local anesthetic volumes (MLAV) and doses (MLAD) of two concentrations of bupivacaine for epidural pain relief in labor, and to quantify the effect on dose.

METHODS: Eighty women were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive a first bolus of either plain bupivacaine 0.125% (w/v) or 0.25% (w/v). The arbitrary starting volume was 15 mL. Subsequent volumes were decided by sequential allocation according to analgesic efficacy. A visual analog pain score ≤10 (0–100) within 30 min, indicated effective analgesia. The next woman received a decrement of 2 mL. A failure of the visual analog pain score to reach ≤10 was followed by a 2 mL increment for the next woman.

RESULTS: Using the formula of Dixon and Massey, MLAV and MLAD, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each concentration. MLAV was 13.6 mL (95% CI 12.4–14.8), with bupivacaine 0.125% (w/v), and 9.2 mL (95% CI 6.9–11.5) with bupivacaine 0.25% (w/v). The difference was highly significant (P = 0.002). MLAD for these volumes were 17.0 mg (95% CI 15.5–18.5), and 23.1 mg (17.2–28.9), respectively (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS: Bupivacaine 0.125% (w/v) when compared with 0.25% (w/v) produced equivalent analgesia with a 50% increase in volume, but with a 25% reduction in dose. Any reduction in dose, without loss of efficacy, reduces risk of toxicity and improves safety.






Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2007 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.